50 complying programs :thumbsup

50 bitches gettin dick jammed down their throat holdin up their IDs on cam :thumbsup:



*edit - you speedy bastard! :1orglaugh


..

There is no friggin way I'd be issuing personal data on models because some govt says so. The govt needs to get it's act together and quit the bullshit else little doubt they will have more than just legal prosecutions, but a few actions against them - tho it may take a couple of murders and rapes of models before they get the idea.

In fairness.. tell a model you are gonna issue her data because the govt says so and you won't have models, but possibly actions to have all content destroyed and removal of her personal info.

i hear ya... totally..
but if it means closing shop and flipping burgers or doing what im required to by law the answer is simple.
Duke

And I love getting it. :thumbsup No wait... that didn't come out right.... uhh... err... you know what I mean. :pimp

Dunno Duke.. but it would be no surprise if there were hearings in the near future setting some precedents to kill off some of the elements of this act.

The issue of model protection is one, tho it does not even improve any protections for children either. There are also issues re trade and messing with net - if the US choses to embark on blocking foreign websites, there will most likely, be a response from other countries.

The new 2257 is very badly thought out and does no good for children either - where laws are already in place, but poorly enforced.

Tho I'm pleased to say I'm not in this battle and have no US connections, but I'd like to be in court on some of this shit and contest it - especially before issuing personal data on folks without their consent and placing em in an awkward situation. Judges have a habit of simplifying laws to common sense :-)

I agree totally.
And it most likley will be contested and some of it overthrown eventually. But for now we have to comply.
And i agree this has nothing to do with kids. it has to do with thowing more and more obstacles in front of us. I'm all for protecting kids and not filming minors. This is simply superfluous and it's superfluity it whats unconstitutional.
cheers
Duke

Again... I dont think you have thought this whole thing through... you are reacting instead of thinking. I am a producer and i know the law. No where does it say you have to give id's out in the manner you are speaking. Thats just insane? This is not a moral issue at all. What content producer in his right mind is going to allow his models id's to be given out like candy in a candy store? I think you will find many more content producers restricting the use of the content, past the secondary producer... meaning... no content to affiliates other then free hosted gallerys, host banners and other marketing materials. Affiliates also have the option to make softcore thumbs that link to softcore galleries, which would require no 2257 docs. Isnt that a much better option that sendings some 18 year old girls id all over the country?

* Softcore galleries, if they are not hosted by the primary or lic holding producer.

* Softcore thumbs that link to softcore galleries when they are being hosted by someone other then the promary or lic. holding secondary producer.

* Free hosted galleries, thumbs, banners, ads by the sponsor with 2257 decloration links on them.


Just doing the above ends the need for sending models 1ds to the four corners of the earth and MUCH easier to put together. Most sponsors have those items in place now. Free content should be restricted to softcore and if sponsors use the tools I listed above, life would be good and people would be compliant without putting models at risk.

Does that not make a ton more sense?

Good Post :thumbsup

For those of you claiming to be ready to send model IDs out, do you have written consent from the models to do so and will you be furnishing proof of that as well?

For those of you suggesting that you are compliant but will NOT be sending model IDs out, how do you figure you are compliant?

-Dino

we have all documents and are scanning them in still, aiming for full compliance by the 1rst

Thanks, now only if they would read it.

People like the guys above are WAY over reacting to all of this. While there is cause for action, the action they are taking only opens another HUGE can of worms.

Being fully compliant is easy and it does not involve putting models at risk. It also offers many other benefits if people would just spend some time, think it through and stop reacting to everything they read on the message boards. I understand the concerns. However, putting the bread and butter of this industry at risk is NOT thinking things through. No where does it say you have to send out ids to points past the secondary producer. You might need to change your promo materials a bit and host a bit more then before, but you do not have to send out models ids. Please read my post above. Its open for discussion of course.

:thumbsup

If Affilaites are going to be compliant info has to be given to them before june 23 or they will not be compliant.
its not just a matter of getting some model releases and ids.

Contact me.
icq: 100646962, email: [email protected]

Only the affiliates that build there own galleries and use sponsor given, hardcore content to do so. FHG's provided they have the 2257 link on them are compliant. The sponsor then would only have to host the thumb linking to that hardcore gallery for the affiliate to be fully compliant under the new standards.

For those that build and submit their own galleries from sponsor given content... they should only use softcore content sets for their galleries and make their thumbs softcore. Sponsors should only offer softcore content to those affiliates that submit which would not require the issuing of a model id to the affiliate.

The builder and submitter are the group that is going to take in on the chin here, but they have ways of adapting also. I just dont see how the sharing of id's is an option at all given the other options out there. Putting models at risk should not even be on the plate in my opinon.

:)

You're wrong wrong wrong.
You don't know what you're talking about so quit spewing out misinformation.

FHG's do NOT need to have a 2257 link on them.
The sponsor hosting a hardcore thumbnail does not mean the TGP owner doesn't need the 2257 documents in order to be in compliance.

Affiliates are NOT responsible for anything they dont host. If a sponsor can show in his docs where the images are located by listing the url they reside on, then why would the affiliate have to maintain 2257 docs? Tell me how or show me where an affiliate can be out of compliance for something he does not host, based on the new regs.

:)

You know screening of affiliates thoroughly by asking for references and actually verifying those references will be a good start and will server dual purpose by not allowing all the "newbies" into the business to oversaturate it. Another option would be in addition to verifying the references is to have affiliates pay for the 2257 packet. That way there would be no huge financial burden on the affiliate program and them not receive a return on investment with an affiliate that never sends traffic or sales. If you have a problem with charging them for the documentation you can always credit the cost back to them after they reached their minimum payout. That way everybody wins and there is no financial hardship endured by anyone because only serious webmasters are going to go to the trouble of purchasing the documentation in the first place.

The regulations say nothing about hosting do they?
Who is the person who "inserted the image into the web page" or the person who has "editorial control" over the content that appears on the web page?

That's the person who needs the docs. Just because the image is hosted on a different server than the web page doesn't mean anything.

Affiliates and anyone else for that matter are responsible for what they "publish"....not just what they host.